What does it say about these providers AUP that the FTC needed to go to court to turn them off?
The AUP standard is usually written much, much lower.
Deepak
Deepak
What does it say about these providers AUP that the FTC needed to go to court to turn them off?
I hate to re-start the atrivo/intercage/mccolo thread(s) but, often
what happens is there just arent any real/usable complaints sent along
to the upstream providers.
The webhost (aps/3fn in this case) may have avoided most/many of the
complaints, over the years, being sent to their upstream(s) or they
may have successfully shuffled their links faster than outages could
be arranged. If address blocks or customers are shuffled fast enough,
or timely enough, it looks like the problem is resolved to an
upstream. One trick I've seen used is to re-announce address blocks
out differing interfaces such that providers catalog the complaints
not against the direct customer but against peers or other customers
'innocents' (possibly).
If the upstream providers don't get quality complaints in a format
they can use and catalog... nothing is going to change. If the
upstreams see no abuse record there is no reason to term a paying
customer.
With the more criminally minded 'customers', the problem is a lot
harder to bring to resolution if you are stuck inside the
contracts/laws of your jurisdiction. It behooves the community at
large to properly catalog and properly complain about these sorts of
things. Saying: "dirty-webhost-X is never going to deal with my
complaints so, I stopped sending them there X months|years ago." is
not going to resolve the issue(s). Email to abuse@ is 'free' for the
sender, almost all complaint generation systems can be automated,
almost all complaint acceptance systems can be as well if the
complaints come in well formed and with the right information
included.
-Chris
It says revenue trumps ethics in far too many instances. Virtually
every company out there, regardless of size, has their share of those
that some would rather do without but who stick around often because
someone with authority is willing to look the other way. Why does this
happen? Money. Simple as that. If they're willing to buy, someone is
willing to sell.
To put any real teeth behind the concept of an AUP and those that are
supposedly charged with enforcing these, in a lot of firms, will take
some sort of landmark criminal or civil case that effectively says,
"You knew about these complaints and chose to ignore them, therefore
you are complicit in what they did. Now fork over." It is unfortunate
that this is probably going to be necessary, but thats the way I see
things. Until companies are scared of the repercussions of weak or
unenforced AUPs, this situation will not change.
-Wayne
Christopher Morrow wrote:
not my call, but feel free.
-Chris